Jonathan Bishop

Sysop prerogative is the right that an owner of an online community has to take whatever actions they wish in order that the community functions the way they wish. In common law counties it is understood that someone can do whatever they want unless they give that right way or it is taken away from them by a superior authority, such as Parliament, in the case of the United Kingdom (UK). It can therefore be expected that the systems operator (sysop) who owns an online community is free to operate their community under any rules they want that has not been taken away from them by statute. After all the community is surely their property which they can use and dispose of in any way they choose?

However, with each right or freedom comes certain duties and obligations, something which is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. This convention, like the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, places obligations on nation states to guarantee certain rights and not to interfere with the enjoyment of these rights except where they conflict with other rights or duties. This means that sysop prerogative may be both guaranteed and limited by European Human Rights Law.

Sysop prerogative can be used for instance to ban users who don’t participate, known as lurkers, some of whom make up to 90% of activity according to some sources.

David Cameron announced his ‘Big Society’ proposal today. It is shaming the Labour Party’s logic on the issue: Tories are bad, the Big Society idea is a Tory initiative, the Big Society is bad.

As a geniune co-operator I have been arguing for this for years – It doesn’t bother me which party introduces it. I do accept Labour concerns that its a cover for cuts, but I think a lot of Labour MPs’ complaints are typical of those who beleive in controlling state socialism.

If you look at the news, it seems there is little real money behind the proposal. I personally think the State’s purpose should be to collect tax to redistribute to strategically important initiatives run by the third sector, and groups individuals who the market would fail. Some how I think David Cameron is against redistributing wealth, especially if it is his and his cabinet colleagues’!

Some have also complained about the Tories’s other proposal today – the academy system – saying that a Comprehensive School education is better. However, I don’t think you should have to be disabled to get an individual learning plan – every child should have an education tailored to their needs. The Comprehensive system won’t ever provide that, whether academies will is another question. Equality of opportunity doesn’t mean giving everyone the same education, it means helping each child reach their potential by recognising that each child is different.

The Chancellor, George Osborne (‘boy George’), of the ‘No Frills’ Conservative Party said his budget would ‘pay for the past and prepare for the future’.

The same was said in the year 2000 by the leaders of Chesapeake City Council in Virginia, USA.

There, their no frills approach has meant that there are regular sewer breaks costing the public up to $30,000 in damages each time.

Chesapeake was also reported in 2008 to be one of the worst cities to help disabled people, and Boy George seems to be following this regressive path by trying to reduce the number of people with disabilities claiming allowances that help them overcome their difficulties.

It was the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher and John Major who first introduced much of the support disabled people have benefited from in the last 30 years.

Yet now, in one foul swoop boy George looks likely to relegate disability rights to the confines of academic literature.

How can William Hague, the man who introduced the Disability Discrimination Act, serve in a government which will withdraw support from the very people he gave the right to define themselves as disabled?

How can David Cameron, the man who’s late son, like me, had epilepsy and was helped a great deal by the State, come to support these measures, which mean that the people least able to support themselves will be paying the price for the greedy bankers who were the cause of deficit?

My friend Mark Beech had a book delivered our house with ‘Dr Mark Beech’ on. I thought nothing of it until he showed me a card from his mobile phone provider with ‘Dr Mark Beech’ on. He got it through answering one question from Templar University, which say they ‘respect everyone’s intelligence’ and will award degrees to anyone to prove how worthless academic degrees are.

Well, whatever Templar say, I don’t respect Mark’s intelligence. Today I asked him whether he noticed something about the order of the top three drivers at the European Grand Prix.

Looking at this table it is clear to me as someone studying at doctoral level that the car number of the next driver can be predicted by adding 1 to the current one and dividing it by 3. Also the grid position of the next driver can be predicted by multiplying the current one by 2 and adding 1.

He didn’t understand this coincidence no matter how much I tried to explain it to him. If I had said this to someone else with a real PhD, or even someone in Mensa with no qualifications, they would have easily understood it.

Mark Beech’s political name in the Official Monster Raving Loony Party is The Good Knight Sir Nosda, but he is certainly no Issac Newton!

I received a postcard from what the writer called a “university town” in Germany recently.

And from the images on the card, the people there know the importance of art and architecture.

So why at home should the Old Bridge be the only redeeming structure of Pontypridd and the park the only relaxing space?

RCT’s match funding of the metal sculpture opposite Brown Lennox means that now, along with the Old Bridge and Ynysangharad Park, there is a third thing that can go on a Pontypridd postcard.

But what about the fourth?

Does Pontypridd have what it takes to come up with the next big idea?

The infantile letters of the Lib Dems each week in the Observer serves only to remind of the state of local politics in the area.

The penny-pinching nature of the finance committee on the Town Coincil makes me ashamed to be a town councillor, and I have not sought re-appointment to it.

The answer therefore lies not with the politicians but with the people.

We are not all as small-minded as the Lib Dems, who publically bemoan the town and borough council giving the Emotivate Project £2,000, which was match funding by money from outside the area worth over £8,000.

This project was not “art for art’s sake”, as Councillor John Bell said, but a value-for-money summer youth scheme.

Unlike his notices of motion which have produced only hot air, it will have a lasting impact on the appearance of the area.

We’ve all heard of the Big Apple – a concrete jungle where dreas are made up according to Alicia Keys.

But what about the Big Ponty?

Why should we settle for second best?

Why can’t we have the big ideas, the big dreams and the big ambitions?

In a speech I made for the Association of Speakers Clubs Online Speech Competition I made the case for introducing electronic signatures for verifying people’s identity when they post to online communities such as bulletin boards.

Some may say that if it is a human right to use the Internet and assemble online through bulletin boards for instance, it must be against human rights laws for the government to introduce restrictions on posting to them.

With regard to freedom of expression the European Convention on Human Rights says the exercise of such a freedom, ‘carries with it duties and responsibilities’ and ‘may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary’.

So it may be the case that if a government introduced a requirement for all users of online communities to verify their identity and sign their posts electronically in the name of preventing crime such as identity theft, and civil wrongs, such as defamation, then it may be permissible under European Human Rights Law for them to do it.

There has been a lot of discussion recently about whether it should be a human right to be able to access the Internet. To implement this may require new treaties.

Taking this one step further, does existing law mean it is a human right to use online communities?

Whereas Article 10 of the ECHR says ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers’.

Whereas Article 11 of the ECHR says ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.’

If you consider the Internet as a medium that crosses frontiers, and a bulletin board as a means of people assembling peacefully, then I would regard it to be a human right to be able to express yourself freely with others in an assembled form in online communities, such as bulletin boards.

Article 11 of the convention, while not being interpreted as imposing an obligation on associations or organisations to admit everyone wishing to join, says people do have a right to apply to join them in order to further the expression of their views and practices as set out in Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers & Firemen v United Kingdom (ECHR, App no 11002/05). An organisation is an undertaking within the meaning of the EU Treaty, and the term undertaking has a broad meaning in EU Law, which can include someone who hosts a bulletin board. This means that someone should have a human right to be able to apply to join an online community, but they have no right to be a member if the administrators choose not to accept them.

Rights are never absolute. The right of one person (e.g. to form an association), may conflict with someone else’s right (e.g. not to form an association), as the ASLEF case shows. In this case it was held that the organisation’s right not to associate was greater than the individual’s right to associate. However, the recent case in the UK over the membership rules of the political party referred to in the ASLEF case should mean that in exercising their rights to refuse membership under Article 11 undertakings must only do so in line with what is acceptable in a democratic society, which includes not discriminating on grounds such as race.

So while Article 11 makes it clear that people have a right to associate with others, such as on a bulletin board, those others also have a right not to associate with them. It doesn’t stop posting on a bulletin board from being a right, just because the Admins can withdraw someones membership on grounds which are non-discriminatory.

I just read an article on the weblog of Cllr John Bell about him not appreciating the work I was involved with to improve the visible appearance of the St. Dyfrig’s underpass.

I find Cllr Bell’s comments quite odd, seeing as some of the grants in question were only given due to a letter of support that he wrote for the project! To attack the project is to attack the creative efforts of all the young people involved. As a councillor for the area he should be supporting youth projects, particularly ones which make such a good contribution to the community.

What Cllr Bell fails to acknowledge is that the funding allocated to the project in Treforest would have gone elsewhere had a convincing case, which a letter from him was part of, not been put together.

When local council budgets are being cut due to Cllr Bell’s colleagues in London slashing the Assembly’s budget, he should be pleased that local community groups like Glamorgan Blended Learning Ltd are bringing in external funding to benefit the local community.

Gordon Brown said that in his position as Prime Minister he has a duty to ‘seek to resolve’ the current situation with regards to a hung parliament. Another prime minister once suggested that true leadership is to find opportunity in every difficulty.

The Prime Minister’s solution should not simply look towards forming a coalition, but a new type of politics. With the support of the other parties he could facilitate the creation of a 25-seat cabinet composed of MPs based on the share of the vote the parties have received and who have been appointed by their party’s MPs. This executive could then elect a chairperson who would assume the role of Prime Minister and appoint the cabinet portfolios in a similar way to the way the European Commission works. The executive would be like the board of a company where everyone has equal responsibility and would therefore have to act in the interests of the country and not their party.

Parliamentary committees could also become proportional. In addition, individual MPs could then be given the right to vote freely or as part of a group on all issues, in a similar way to how they do in the European Parliament. MPs would no longer be accountable to the whips, but to their constituents.

This approach would renew our democracy and could be done without primary legislation. I urge the parties to adopt this position and take the country forward, to a future where partisanism ends and progress begins.

It was interesting to read Glyn Morris’ letter about the Lib Dems’ claims to be the rightful party to represent Pontypridd (Viewpoints, April 22).

They based their claims on the results of a local election in which they came first only two years earlier, but also in which some of their vote went to the Loony Party! While the Loonies seem likely to take more votes from the Lib Dems in Cardiff Central after coming above them in a poll of Cardiff students, here in Pontypridd things are looking much worse for them.

Of the numerous elections over the past two years in Pontypridd in which the Green Party stood, the Lib Dems always lost and Labour always won, including in a seat the Lib Dems held for a decade. In the election last year in which both the Greens and UKIP stood the Lib Dems came fifth. And guess what? Both the Greens and UKIP are standing in Pontypridd in this General Election.

With Nick Clegg making his party’s policy on Europe look like a cross between a German Shepherd and a French poodle (ever closer union, even less influence), these minor parties look even more likely to take votes away from the Lib Dems.

While the TV debates have given Nick Clegg the legitimacy of the established leaders, the people of Pontypridd and the UK as a whole are not stupid. They know that voting Lib Dem instead of Labour means either a David Cameron victory or a hung Parliament and that neither will be good for the economic recovery, in which a majority government willing to work with European and other world partners is needed.